Dutch park unveils signs to ‘warn visitors’ about gay cruising spots

Post your comment

Reader comments

Ultimately, I think this will provoke homophobia and is a bad move. If all gay men in such parks were doing was cruising each other and then taking it indoors it wouldn’t be an issue. But tolerance is a two way street and park sex is showing a lack of respect and tolerance to the communities we live in and who tolerate us. Time to lift your game, chaps.

I disagree Andy. I think this is a good decision – because it will define specific areas where gay men can be left to cruise in peace. The trouble with the UK is that there are no designated areas where we can cruise in the knowledge we won`t be a)Queerbashed b) Police-bashed with stop notices,ASBO`s and threats of cautions if we are ever “caught” frequenting that area again. It would define our rights to seek out like-minded friends- in the same way that straights can pick up girls in nightclubs etc.

re John: the analogy between gay people cruising and straight people picking up in nightclubs is flawed. Gay people can also “seek like minded friends” through a variety of media that do not involve public sex. There are a range of institutions that parallel straight ones, such as gay nightclubs, online dating sites, and for more casual encounters, sex-on-premises venues.

Prosecuting sex in public is not necessarily homophobic, since the law applies equally to both gay and straight couples (and straight couples too often choose to have public sex).

Equality runs both ways, and if we want equal rights in things like marriage, we have to break the association between gays and public sex, or the acceptability in gay culture of cruising in parks and public toilets.

Putting up signs specifying that an area is frequented by gays crusing either suggests that gays are getting “special rights” or that cruising is a specifically gay thing.

Absolutely agree with the first post. Signs will just increase gay-bashing. Gay men that cruise need to understand why the feel compelled to do it – it’s simple fact that cruising is not necessary in 2009, to live a fulfilling and thrilling life, so why do men do it?

Raise the game, public sex is bad for you and the community in so many ways. Apart from the, purely selfish, thrill factor, what good comes of it?

People cruise for the thrill of it. There is absolutely no necessity in the modern world to engage in cruising other than for the thrill of it. If you want to have anonymous sex you can meet someone online; hire an escort; go to a sauna; go to a club. It is not like 50 years ago where there was genuinely few places to meet other men.

I am against this proposal. It will increase homophobic attacks. This cruising ground is in a Muslim neighbourhood and considerintg that the increase in homophobic attacks in Amsterdam is thanks to Muslim youth this new plan will tell them where to look for victims.

Andy, Mihai, Simon, Dan – I have to agree here. If we expect equality then we can’t be seen to get away with stuff straight people wouldn’t.
I’m not such a prude that I don’t imagine both gay people and straight people do this all the time, but in both cases it’s illegal and if caught you spend a night in the cells. There are many other places to pick up a date these days, so there’s no actual need for it beyond illicit thrillseeking.
Can you imagine how it would be if straight people put up signs for designated dogging areas in country road lay-bys? It’s not homophobic to expect us to do our business somewhere private.

Do any of you think gay men will ever stop cruising for sex? Its a basic fact of gay life. For years gay men have been pilloried for having sex in areas other than behind locked doors and in private. Many men have committed suicide for having been “discovered” doing nothing more than performing a simple bodily function in a “non-designated area”. Most gay men do not want to be seen by anyone-thats why they go to great lengths to keep out of public view. Like “the oldest profession in the world” while gay and bi-sexual men exist-some of them will always cruise for sex. Its no good moralising like Mary Whitehouses- get real like the Dutch authorities.

John (Derbyshire) – I hear outdated views. A huge proportion of people have access or can get access to the web, for example. If you can make time to have sex in bushes, you can make time to use a computer or got to a bar to cruise. No excuse!

Your perspective suggests internalised homophobia. Don’t you think the very expression of our sexuality deserves more than a wank in some undergrowth?

Dan-the very act of having “a wank in the bushes” IS a part of gay culture. Gay cruising goes back centuries! Who wants to hang round noisey bars all night or mess about on Gaydar-when you can get a spontaneous and mutually satisfying liaison “behind the bushes” -where both parties are “up for it”!

“So, just because heterosexuals get involved in cruising/dogging, that makes it better does it, John K?

No-one is protecting thrill seeking heterosexuals for dogging – it’s looked upon as generally crass and distasteful. Even sad.

Like gay men cruising.”

Dan thank you for your comment on my thread.

I am not doing any moralising on whether gay of heterosexual cruising is right or wrong.

What I am interested is hypocrisy.
It seems to me that heterosexual cruising is hardly ever addressed, mentioned or met with the hysteria surrounding homosexual cruising, even though heterosexual cruising is clearly more prevalent and exceptional well organised. . .

Personally I think I should be free to wander wherever I like without having to worry about people gay or straight having sex.

What has happened to our basic sense of decency and dignity?

That said, I have never ever come across any sexual activities in any public place – despite sometimes being in places that I subsequently discovered to be cruising grounds – so I suspect this whole issue is massively over hyped.

But if it happens at all it’s still wrong. We’re not children who can’t control themselves, after all.

. . . put it this way when sexual promiscuity is seen as a rite of passage or being a bit of a lad in heterosexuality . . . as it so often is . . . in contrast it is not quite the same if the man is gay.

Why is this so . . .

Well, is it not the case that Heterosexual male promisicuity is even a virtous by its encapsualtion in high art, the establishment, a sort of respectability

Don Giovanni . . . I think is a point in question.
Is there such a thing as a Gay Don Giovanni?

(I am not making a moral statment on promisicuity just addressing the hypocrisiy inherent in heterosexuality)